Nahrain University, College of Engineering Journal (NUCEJ) Vol.10, No.1, 2007 pp.

27-36

Dr. Moneer Hameed Tolephih

The Micro-Slip Damper Stiffness Effect on the Steady-State Characteristics of Turbine Blade
Moneer H. Tolephih , Assistant Pro.
and mechanical properties of the blade-damper system, the dry friction between mating surfaces of the damper play a role in describing the response behavior of the system[3]. The problem of friction modeling for reliable analysis of the process, becomes the major agency in relevant scopes of such subjects. The macroslip modeling type by Bazan et al [4], Ferri and Dowell[5], Muszynska and Jones[6], Wang et al [7], and the Microslip modeling by Meng et al [8,9,10], nonlinear vibration analysis for one dimensional dynamic microslip friction model and multi blade model by Cigeroglu et al [11,12] and Gabor[13], represent the professional attempts in this field. Each modeling approach bears lot of merits and some other demerits. Most advantages of the microslip friction modeling over the macro one, reflected in sophisticated representation of motion-dependency of the damping itself that can not take place in the macroslip class of friction. The excellent theoretical work, in this issue, may be found in references[8,13] where a proposition of one-bar friction modeling was displayed thoroughly, while the work of Meng et al [9] and Gabor[13] succeeds in creating a developed two-bar microslip model. The main difference between the two models is limited by the number of slid regions occupied in the friction plate of the damper which contains, for both models, one stuck region. However, the result governing equation of motion seems identical in the form regardless the type of friction bar modeling. In spite of that, there exists some difficulty in estimating the equivalent damper stiffness for the two model. The two-bar model show much lengthy manipulation of stiffness compared with the one-bar model. A group of input data should be prepared correctly for such analysis, these are consisting of all necessary parameters affecting the system response (the discrete lumped

Abstract:
In this paper, a comprehensive study of friction damper stiffness effects on the response characteristics of a typical turbine blade executing steady-state motion, is explored. The damper is modeled as a one-bar microslip type assembled in the intermediate platform attachment of the blade leaving the other attachment of a shroud mass at the blade tip to be free. A discrete lumped mass approach, previously theorized in another paper, is employed to predict the response amplitudes as well as the slip length parameter at any state of the forced frequency including the resonance condition. The analysis covers a practical range of damper stiffness values adapted from relevant studies in this field. The present main outputs show that a magnificent rising of the response occurs with the increase in the stiffness, the characteristic behavior varies appreciably and the resonant amplitudes tend to increase linearly at high levels of damper stiffness, whereas the corresponding frequency and slip length show almost uniform trend. The results can serve very well for design and control purposes in the pre-manufacture stages of the given blade-damper system.

Keywords: Blade, stiffness . 1. Introduction:

The aspect of dry friction is occasionally found as a powerful tool to reduce high resonant stresses in industrial jet-engine blades[1], where serial assembled blades are attached together through platforms to maintain friction damping of the motion[2]. Generally, the steady-state motion characteristics depend widely upon the geometrical

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Tolephih 27

masses and associated bending stiffness, the normal pressure variation in the damper mating surfaces, the Coulomb friction coefficient, the elastic constant, length and sectional area of the modeled bar). In his paper, the present author[14] investigated the effects of normal load parameters on the steady-state response comprehensively. Time comes now to extend the analysis to the friction damper effect regarding the elastic specification and geometry of the one-bar model (the physical length and sectional area). The author found that all these items can be gathered successfully in a single parameter referring to the damper longitudinal stiffness, without loss of originality, a matter which seems very important for quality control of the vibrated system and more essentially for mechanical design of the damping device itself.

q q2 q0 A, l, E F

Figure (2) The friction one-bar micro-slip model The plate, under friction action, is simulated as onebar model, as shown in Fig.(3), with sliding part of length . The plate, in Figs.(2,3), is plotted at 900 rotation with that in Fig.(1). The piece-wise equation of motion, for the first and second mass of the given system, can be simplified in the following forms (see Ref.[15]):

2. Theoretical Analysis:
Keeping pace with the theoretical works of references[13], the present system of 2-degree of freedom, under consideration, is schematically shown in Fig.(1), with general notations used for analysis purpose. The damper is attached to the lower platform of mass, m1, while a shroud mass, m2, is kept at the free end where an exciting harmonic force, P, is acting independently. The friction damper has an equivalent stiffness, keq, and damping constant, ceq. Fig.(2) illustrates a possible normal pressure, q , acting on the mating surface of the damper plates whose Young modulus is denoted by E, length and sectional area by l and A respectively.

l F Ff x

Figure (3) The one-bar micro-slip modeling with notations

m1 .x1 c eq .x1 m 2 .x 2 P

k1 .x1 0 k 2 .( x 2
t t t

k 2 .( x1

x 2 ) k eq .x1 0

x1 ) P

x1

Pa .e j

x2

x1 x2

x1a .e j x 2 a .e j

k1 ceq

m1

k2 keq

m2
where x1 and x2 represent the displacement functions for the lower and upper attachments respectively, k1 and k2 the lumped bending stiffness respectively, Pa, x1a and x2a are the amplitudes of the exciting force and the piece-wise displacements respectively, while is the external frequency of the applied force and that j is the usual imaginary root and t is the elapsed time of excitation. To solve for the main response parameters x1a, x2a, then the substitution of the third of eq.(1), back into the first two equations, yields :

Figure (1) The forced friction-damped 2DOF dynamic system.[13]

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Turbine Blade

28

x 1a x 2a C1 C2

(Pa .k 2 ) C1 .C 2 (Pa (k 2 (k 1 k2 2 k 2 .x 1a ) C1 m2. k2

2

2
2

equating u0 with x1a, as the matter should be recognized naturally. Reference [14] displays a target function , very useful to determine upon usage of last idea, in the form of:
1 Q2 4 EA/ l 2 Q0 3
2 2

) c eq . j m1 . )

k eq

Q0

Among all input data of (Pa, k1, k2, m1, m2 and ) the indirect data keq and ceq, appearing in eq.(2) were usually estimated using Lazan[16] formula in the form of:
2

k2 (k 2 m2 . Q0 Q2 mq0l Pa mq2l Pa ).(k1 k 2 k eq ceq .j m1.

2

) k2 2

keq

F0 u0

ceq

3
The introduced quantities Q0 and Q2 are just alternative forms of q0 and q2 respectively in nondimensional fashion (with m denotes friction coefficient). The employment of eq.(5) needs further numerical method to assign the true value of . An iteration procedure of extended bi-secant technique, familiarly found in related fields, may be very active to achieve the goal. At the end, the present computed results of x1a and x2a as varied with , would be conveniently altered to nondimensional quantities of 1, 2 and respectively in the form of:

where F0 and u0 are the amplitudes of the translated force and corresponding displacement, at the damper bar tip respectively (refer to Fig.(3)). In reference [14], a thorough derivation of both baranthes terms, in eq.(3), has been achieved successfully. The final expressions of these items may be summarized below:

F0 u0

( EA / l )

1 1 2

2 q2 3 3 q0 q2 4 q0 3

2
2

,
14 2 5
2 2

q2 1 4 q0 1 2 q2 q0 1 2 l q2 4 q0 3
2

e1

x1a , x1s k2 m2 k2 m2 2
2

x2a x2 s
1/ 2

k1
4
e1

k2 m1 2

ceq

2( EA / l ) 3

8 7

16 2 5
2 2

k1

k2 m1

4 k1 k 2 m1 m2

q2 4 q0 3

x1s x2 s

Pa k1 k eq Pa k2 x1s

Noting that the quantity (q2/q0) is simply the normal load ratio and is the slip length ratio. The damper plate mechanical properties are evidently declared by the term (EA/l) appearing in above equation. It can be referred to one parameter entitled as the damper longitudinal stiffness whose effect stands as the main objective of the current work. In order to utilize eq.(4) the value of must be preestimated. Gabor[13] has solved this problem by NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

where e1 denotes the first eign-frequency of the free-damped system, while x1s and x2s represent the static amplitudes respectively.

3. Numerical results and discussion:

First of all, a software program, built-up for present iteration procedure, is strictly run for fixed input data of: k1= k2=107N/m, m1= m1= m2=0.05kg, and Tolephih 29

eight selected values of Q0=5.6, 16,32,80,160,320,800 and 8000 with Q2/Q0=-0.5. These are the actual constant parameters held well by [13,15]. In these references, the damper plate properties are kept constant with EA=40000N and l=0.2m. In the present computation this is identical to EA/l=200000. Therefore, a choice of nine distinct values of (12500, 25000, 50000, 100000, 200000, 500000, 800000 and 860000), for this parameter, seem adequate to estimate the entire effect on the system. The plan is then devoted to spread the huge out printings of 1, 2 and as related with for given (EA/l) value, as well as the corresponding resonant parameters 1res, 2res, res and res as varied with the same damper stiffness. Figs.(4-15) and Tables(1-4) satisfy this condition briefly. In Figs.(4,5) the variation of 1 with is plotted for fixed Q2/Q0 but for all the different values of (EA/l). Fig.(4) takes the lowest set value of Q0=5.6 whilst Fig.(5) takes the largest one Q0=8000. As seen, the behavior is altered obviously. The peak points (resonant) go down with (EA/l) when Q0 is small, whereas they go up for large Q0. The same trend can be noticed for 2 parameter as shown in Figs.(6,7) respectively and also for parameter in Figs.(8,9) where at approaches unity (from left or right), the peak tends to equal one (i.e. the damper plate would totally slide). Tables(1-4) show a collection of resonant values of all the main parameters for a variety of settings of (AE/l) and Q0 values keeping Q2/Q0=-0.5 as mentioned before. In each table, the data in the fifth row correspond to those recomputed from Gabor[13]. The figures, afterwards, relate to the resonant values as functions of the damper stiffness. The first two ones, in Figs.(10,11), show 1res variation for two setting values of Q0 respectively. As shown, Fig.(10) illustrates a decreasing trend of 1res with (AE/l) for Q0=5.6 to 80, whereas Fig.(11) shows counter-wise linear trend for larger Q0 value. The characteristic behavior, in this manner, seems new. The resonant curve decreases with Q0 in Fig.(10), but it increases appreciably in Fig.(11). A similar style is observed in Figs.(12,13) for 2res parameter respectively with one exception that the counter-wise increase in 2res does not seem to be perfect linear. The last Figs.(14,15) show the variation of res and res with (EA/l) respectively for all the nine set values of Q0. In Fig.(14) the slip length ratio varies linearly with very slight increase, besides the curve itself goes down with Q0. A reversed behavior is noticed in Fig.(15) for res variation, where the ratio shows large increase, while it goes up as Q0 increases further.

(a) The 1 and 2 response curves show special shifting with the increase in the exciting frequency as the damper stiffness increases. The artificial shift, for 1, is in the down-right direction (i.e. the peaks decrease and move right with ), whereas for 2 the shift is in the up-right direction. (b) The response curve rises with the damper stiffness and shows peak values near =1 when Q0 is small. The stuck part length approaches maximum value at this situation. For large value of Q0 the response curve goes up to the right with the increase in . (c) The resonant displacements 1res and 2res show two different trends with (AE/l). The first one concerns comparable small Q0 value, where the curve goes down with both Q0 and (AE/l). The second one shows counter-wise manner absolutely with linear increase as (AE/l) increases. (d) The resonant curves, of slip length ratio res and frequency ratio res, give a humble linear rising with (AE/l), but is strongly affected by Q0 value. The characteristic curve of res goes down with the increase in Q0, whilst res curve shows a trend opposite to that comparably.

5. References:
1. Srinivasan A.V. and Cutts D.G., Dry Friction Damping Mechanisms in Engine Blades , Trans. ASME, J. Engg. Power, 1983, Vol. 105, pp. 332341. 2. Menq C.H., A Review of Friction Damping of Turbine Blade Vibration , Int. J. Turbo & Jet Engines, 1990, Vol. 7, pp. 297-307. 3. Cameron T.M., An Alternating Frequency/Time Domain Method for Calculating The SteadyState Response of Nonlinear Dynamic Systems , Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mech., 1989, Vol. 56, pp. 149-154. 4. Bazan E., Beilak J. and Griffin J.H., An Efficient Method for Predicting The Vibratory Response of Linear Structures With Friction Interfaces , Trans. ASME, J. Engg. Gas Turb. & Power, 1986, Vol. 108, pp. 633-640 5. Ferri A.A and Dowell E.H., Frequency Domain Solutions To Multi-Degree-of-Freedom, Dry Friction Damped Systems , J. Sound & Vibr., 1988, Vol. 124, pp. 207-224. 6. Muszynska A. and Jones D.I., On Tuned Bladed Disk Dynamics: Some Aspects of Friction Related Mistuning , J. Sound & Vibr., 1983, Vol. 86, pp. 107-128. 7. Wang J.H. and Sheih W.L., The Influence of a Variable Function Coefficient On The Dynamic Behavior of a Blade With a Friction Damper , J. Sound & Vibr., 1991, Vol. 149, pp. 137-145.

4. Conclusions:
In brief, the pertinent remarks, listed below, represent the main conclusion drawn from present analysis and discussion:

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Turbine Blade

30

8. Menq C.H., Griffin J.H. and Beilak J., The Forced Response of Shrouded Fan Stages , Trans. ASME, J. Vibr. Acous. Stress & Reliab. In Design, 1986, Vol. 198, pp. 50-55. 9. Menq C.H., Bielak J. and Griffin J.H., The influence of Microslip On Vibratory Response, Part I: A New Microslip Model , J. Sound & Vibr., 1986, Vol. 107, pp. 279-293. 10. Menq C.H., Bielak J. and Griffin J.H., The influence of Microslip On Vibratory Response, Part II: A Comparison With Experimental Results , J. Sound & Vibr., 1986, Vol. 107, pp. 295-307. 11. Cigeroglu E., Lu W.and Menq C.H., OneDimensional Dynamic Microslip Friction Model , J. Sound and Vibr.,2006,Vol 292,pp881 898 12. Cigeroglu E, and Ozguven H., Nonlinear Vibration Analysis of Bladed Disks with Dry

Friction Dampers , J. Sound and Vibr.,2006,Vol 295, pp 1028 1043 13. Csaba G., Modelling Microslip Damping And Its Influence On Turbine Blade Vibrations, Dissertation No. 519, Linkoping Studies in Science and Technology, Linkoping University, Sweden, 1998. 14. Tolephih M.H., The Normal Load Effect on Response Characteristics of Turbine Blades with One-Bar Microslip Friction Damper , sent for publication. 15. Timoshenko S.P, Young D.H. and Weaver W., Vibration Problems In Engineering, 4th Edition, 1974, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Canada. 16. Lazan B.J., Damping of Materials And Members in Structural Mechanics, 1968, Pergamon Press Inc., London.

Figure (4) Variation of resonant (Phi1)with the normalized frequency (Omega) for different damper stiffness values (EA/L)and Fixed normalized loading of Q0 & Q2/Q0.

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Tolephih 31

Figure (5) Variation of (Phi1) with the normalized exciting frequency (Omega) for different damper stiffness values (EA/L) and fixed normalized loading of Q0 & Q2/Q0.

Fig.(6) Variation of resonant (Phi2) with the normalized exciting frequency (Omega) for different damper stiffness values (EA/L) and fixed normalized loading of Q0 & Q2/Q0.

Figure (7) Variation of (Phi2) with the normalized exciting frequency (Omega) for different damper stiffness values (EA/L) and fixed normalized loading of Q0 & Q2/Q0.

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Turbine Blade

32

Figure (8) The resonant (Delta) as varied with normalized exciting frequency (Omega) for different damper stiffness values (EA/L) and fixed normalized loading Q0 & Q2/Q0.

Figure.(9) The normalized (Delta) as varied with normalized exciting frequency (Omega) for different damper stiffness values (EA/L) and fixed normalized loading Q0 & Q2/Q0.

Figure (10) Variation of resonant (Phi1) with damper stiffness (EA/L) for fixed normalized load (Q2/Q0) and the first four values of the normalized load ((Q0).

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Tolephih 33

Figure (11) Variation of resonant (Phi1) with damper stiffness (EA/L) for fixed normalized load (Q2/Q0) and the second four values of the normalized load (Q0).

Figure (12) Variation of resonant (Phi2) with damper stiffness (EA/L) for fixed normalized load (Q2/Q0) and the first six values of the normalized load (Q0).

Figure (13) Variation of resonant (Phi2) with damper stiffness (EA/L) for fixed normalized load (Q2/Q0) and the last two values of the normalized load (Q0).

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Turbine Blade

34

Table(1). The normalized amplitudes, slip lengths and frequencies at resonance for variety of damper stiffness values (EA/L) and two normal load coefficients (Q0=5.6, 16).

Curve
1 2 3 4 5(Gabor) 6 7 8 9

EA/L
1,res

Q0=5.6
2,res a,res res 1,res 2,res

Q0=16
a,res res

12500 25000 50000 100000 200000 500000 800000 820000 860000

358.3900 412.5412 388.3821 215.3262 125.1859 67.7086 53.5863 53.1490 51.9321

274.8890 309.3502 282.0630 149.4697 81.4756 38.7271 27.9348 27.5662 26.6350

0.4957 0.7500 0.9415 0.9462 0.9547 0.9736 0.9951 0.9973 0.9989

1.0033 1.0033 1.0033 1.0067 1.0133 1.0333 1.0500 1.0500 1.0533

430.7643 233.5297 131.1735 81.2281 53.1103 37.0060 34.3822 34.3294 34.2592

318.0713 165.9546 88.2626 50.5852 29.6315 16.6162 13.2966 13.1760 12.9176

0.2823 0.2829 0.2842 0.2945 0.3040 0.3322 0.3582 0.3599 0.3632

1.0033 1.0067 1.0133 1.0233 1.0433 1.0967 1.1367 1.1367 1.1433

Table(2). The normalized amplitudes, slip lengths and frequencies at resonance for variety of damper stiffness values (EA/L) and two normal load coefficients (Q0=32, 80).

Curve
1 2 3 4 5(Gabor) 6 7 8 9

EA/L
1,res 2,res

Q0=32
a,res res 1,res

Q0=80
2,res a,res res

12500 25000 50000 100000 200000 500000 800000 820000 860000

169.3906 134.4862 80.4874 53.7798 40.1684 35.4111 37.7586 37.9755 38.4143

169.3906 90.4921 50.1661 29.9858 19.1934 12.6673 11.1966 11.1414 11.0382

0.1304 0.1312 0.1330 0.1385 0.1467 0.1692 0.1891 0.1904 0.1928

1.0067 1.0133 1.0233 1.0467 1.0833 1.1633 1.2167 1.2200 1.2267

114.3412 70.3389 48.4170 38.3699 36.2025 45.0106 56.5110 57.2941 58.8478

75.2558 42.4752 25.8071 17.2400 12.9657 10.9932 11.0304 11.0466 11.0794

0.0502 0.0511 0.0532 0.0570 0.0637 0.0804 0.0940 0.0949 0.0965

1.0167 1.0300 1.0600 1.1033 1.1667 1.2733 1.3300 1.3333 1.3400

Table(3). The normalized amplitudes, slip lengths and frequencies at resonance for variety of damper stiffness values (EA/L) and two normal load coefficients (Q0=160, 320).

Curve
1 2 3 4 5(Gabor) 6 7 8 9

EA/L
1,res

Q0=160
2,res a,res res 1,res

Q0=320
2,res a,res res

12500 25000 50000 100000 200000 500000 800000 820000 860000

70.1927 48.6410 38.5449 36.4692 41.9061 65.4657 89.7416 91.3779 94.5824

42.3300 25.9296 17.3260 13.0533 11.3204 11.4744 12.3961 12.4698 12.5890

0.0251 0.0262 0.0280 0.0313 0.0368 0.0497 0.0597 0.0603 0.0615

1.0333 1.0600 1.1033 1.1700 1.2500 1.3567 1.4067 1.4067 1.4133

48.7399 38.6195 36.6055 42.1323 57.8128 107.0689 155.5951 158.7989 165.2096

25.9845 17.3636 13.1073 11.3903 11.3214 13.2231 15.0678 15.1773 15.4034

0.0130 0.0139 0.0155 0.0182 0.0226 0.0322 0.0394 0.0398 0.0406

1.0600 1.1033 1.1700 1.2500 1.3333 1.4267 1.4633 1.4667 1.4700

Table(4). The normalized amplitudes, slip lengths and frequencies at resonance for variety of damper stiffness values (EA/L) and two normal load coefficients (Q0=800, 8000).

Curve
1 2 3 4 5(Gabor) 6 7 8 9

EA/L
1,res

Q0=800
2,res a,res res 1,res

Q0=8000
2,res a,res res

12500 25000 50000 100000 200000 500000 800000 820000 860000

37.2405 37.5797 46.0021 66.3226 107.7988 229.4562 348.5711 356.4561 372.2272

15.6553 12.3708 11.2602 11.6577 13.3363 17.6633 21.0105 21.2149 21.6083

0.0057 0.0065 0.0077 0.0097 0.0127 0.0190 0.0236 0.0238 0.0244

1.1233 1.1933 1.2767 1.3567 1.4267 1.4933 1.5200 1.5200 1.5233

76.9926 128.8557 230.7795 430.6270 823.1804 1978.2296 3136.9676 3212.5258 3355.0038

12.0998 14.2304 17.8043 23.1904 30.9992 46.6391 58.1153 58.7813 60.0098

0.0011 0.0014 0.0019 0.0026 0.0036 0.0056 0.0070 0.0071 0.0073

1.3833 1.4467 1.4933 1.5300 1.5567 1.5800 1.5867 1.5867 1.5867

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Tolephih 35

NUCEJ, Vol.10, NO.1

Turbine Blade

36

This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.